Consigli & Associates, LLC v. Maplewood Senior Living, LLC

Nature of the document

The provided text is a pre-motion letter from Federal Insurance Company, a non-party surety, rather than a court opinion explaining a final ruling. Federal submitted the letter under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(3), which governs requests to quash or modify subpoenas.

Discovery dispute

Maplewood issued a subpoena to Federal. Although Maplewood withdrew its request to depose Federal, the subpoena still sought documents, including:

- Agreements between Federal and people or entities obligated to reimburse Federal under surety bonds, including indemnity and workout agreements; and - Federal’s complete underwriting file.

Federal said it had objected to producing those materials because they were irrelevant, unlikely to lead to admissible evidence, confidential or proprietary, and related to post-judgment discovery. Federal stated that, after meeting and conferring with Maplewood’s counsel, it produced 14,978 pages on December 10, 2021, while maintaining its objections to the remaining requests.

Arguments presented by Federal

Federal argued that the case contained no allegations concerning Federal’s bonds, indemnity agreements, or the process Federal used to underwrite surety bonds. It also argued that the requested files and agreements concerned other construction projects or matters outside this case.

Federal further asserted that the materials contained confidential commercial information and might include protected or privileged material. It cited subpoena rules allowing courts to quash subpoenas requiring disclosure of protected matter and to decline enforcement when a subpoena seeks trade secrets or confidential commercial information.

Federal also characterized the requests as improper post-judgment discovery because underwriting files and indemnity agreements can reveal financial condition, assets, bank accounts, and other sensitive information. The letter stated that such financial discovery generally is not allowed during litigation unless it concerns specific elements of a claim.

Disposition

The provided text does not state that the court granted, denied, or otherwise resolved Federal’s request to quash or modify the subpoena. It says only that the defendant was to respond to Federal’s letter by December 16, 2021.

Judge identification

The supplied case information identifies Jed Rakoff as the judge. The text itself, however, is addressed to Judge Lorna G. Schofield and includes a date stamp referring to her. The materials therefore contain an unresolved inconsistency about the judge.